Archie Leveal Scott v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County

NO. 12-05-00272-CR

NO. 12-05-00273-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ARCHIE LEVEAL SCOTT, APPEALS FROM THE 145TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Archie Leveal Scott appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, and delivery of a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by separate indictments with one count of possession of between four and two hundred grams of cocaine and one count of delivery of less than one gram of cocaine. Appellant pleaded not guilty to each charge and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for four years on the possession conviction and confinement for two years on the delivery conviction. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered August 25, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in these causes. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.